The Return: An Alternate History of our Return to the Moon

yes the point of departure happens in 1963. In real life, no work was done but by popular demand over on discord and my Michel in this thread, I made it canon. And yes, although it would seem redundant I feel like personally it could be better for ELA but either way, I found it to be a bit silly and decided "Hey why not" lol.
that's probably as far fetched in divergence terms as I'll get and I'll stay in the realm of reality from here forward...also three shuttles looks based lmao

I have to agree with e of pi here in that while yes, three Shuttles being prepped would look bada**ed the big conundrum is that the flight and turn rate is NOT as tight as a lot of the discussion of ELA makes it seem. (As we've discussed above) And as e of pi points out the conversion costs are going to eat a huge chunk of the 'savings' ELA was supposed to have.

Now I have a thought on that though; With 39C having been developed for Apollo, what's the chances of the Air Force looking to convert it instead of building Vandenburg's Shuttle pad? I know there were a bunch of specific reasons that the AF OTL decided to go with a West Coast/Polar Orbital launch pad but in this context there's a serviceable and convertible pad already at the Cape that might work out better. Thoughts?

Randy
 
Now I have a thought on that though; With 39C having been developed for Apollo, what's the chances of the Air Force looking to convert it instead of building Vandenburg's Shuttle pad? I know there were a bunch of specific reasons that the AF OTL decided to go with a West Coast/Polar Orbital launch pad but in this context there's a serviceable and convertible pad already at the Cape that might work out better. Thoughts?
Shuttle payload to polar orbits out of KSC existed, but was awful--like, nine or ten thousand pounds or so, IIRC, down from sixty-five thousand to 28.5 degree ideal and like fifty thousand or so to polar from Vandy? (In terms of mass-to-orbit, the loss is a lot lower, like the difference between 135 tons and 109 tons, but when the first 100 tons or so are booked to the orbiter's dry weight, that difference of only like 15-20% on the base mass to orbit ends up on the margins eating almost all your payload). I think you'd only get that if you had a pretty radically different Shuttle whose performance so exceeded DoD performance needs that those kinds of losses were acceptable.
 
I think you'd only get that if you had a pretty radically different Shuttle whose performance so exceeded DoD performance needs that those kinds of losses were acceptable.
Is that even possible at the time?
 
Shuttle payload to polar orbits out of KSC existed, but was awful--like, nine or ten thousand pounds or so, IIRC, down from sixty-five thousand to 28.5 degree ideal and like fifty thousand or so to polar from Vandy? (In terms of mass-to-orbit, the loss is a lot lower, like the difference between 135 tons and 109 tons, but when the first 100 tons or so are booked to the orbiter's dry weight, that difference of only like 15-20% on the base mass to orbit ends up on the margins eating almost all your payload). I think you'd only get that if you had a pretty radically different Shuttle whose performance so exceeded DoD performance needs that those kinds of losses were acceptable.
Is that even possible at the time?

I was thinking that was the case but in context IIRC that's what the "Titan-based ET Booster Module" was for overcoming wasn't it? IIRC it was pretty much seen as a way to get payloads needed out of the Cape if for some reason Vandy didn't get done or used. Still unlikely but hey I'm trying to help justify rebuilding Pad 39C so there's that :)

Randy
 

marathag

Banned
yes the point of departure happens in 1963. In real life, no work was done but by popular demand over on discord and my Michel in this thread, I made it canon. And yes, although it would seem redundant I feel like personally it could be better for ELA but either way, I found it to be a bit silly and decided "Hey why not" lol.
Contingency incase a Pad is damaged during launch
 
Is that even possible at the time?
There's a lot of ways Shuttle payload could have been increased at the design stage, some good ideas (like LRBs or a series-burn design radically different than the OTL one like the "Space Lifter" in my timeline "Right Side Up") some less good like the Titan Boost Module or 5-seg solids. They were all technically feasible, but TBH "just build a pad at Vandenberg AFB" was still just easier all around unless you were already doing all of that for some other reason.
 
Contingency incase a Pad is damaged during launch
The two pads were basically already contingency in case a pad was damaged by a launch, they only really needed one. All but one Saturn V flew from 39A historically, only Apollo 10 went from LC-39B and given the turnarounds LC39A did, it probably didn't need to to make the schedule.
 
Contingency incase a Pad is damaged during launch
I like your ideas! Yeah 3 pads can be good if one is lost or one is say being refurbished or something

But you already have that with two (2) pads and the extra cost of a third is going to be a punch in 'somebody's' budget which was e of pi's point. Considering how actually low your flight rate is going to be I'm pretty sure it would blow ELA's/"Selene's" budget so who built it and why?
(Hence my suggestion of the DoD but e of pi has a good point about the payload hit)

ELA only planned two (2) flights a year (two Shuttle and two ELV) and I get that given at that point the Shuttle was still supposed to be the US's primary flight vehicle so still had a schedule of "other" launches to accomplish. I get where e of pi is coming from and have to point out that having all "three" pads at the Cape converted means the budget of some program just took a major hit. If it's ELA that means the whole program is vastly more expensive than planned which is going to be a problem or the original Shuttle program has a major budget spike which is likely to cause issues with that program.

Personally I'd look to take the hit in the original Shuttle program, though I'm not sure of the downstream effects (which could include a reduction in Orbiters from four to three... maybe the Air Force hops in and helps get #4 built but now it's more assigned to them than NASA? I was going to post a question thread on such an idea but I guess here's good enough :) ) simply because despite such cost overruns OTL's Shuttle program managed to keep 'getting away" with such shenanigans historically so why not? :)

After it's rebuilt then it's put into 'mothballs' until ELA comes out and then refurbished to allow launches from there dedicated to the Selene program since it will have some additional 'needs' (propellant transfer and storage for the Cargo Bay payload for example) and requirements that the other two pads would not need installed unless and until that pad was damaged.

Speaking of propellant in the payload bay, as that's going to take modifications to the Orbiter will that be happening to all the Orbiters of just a couple? Also might they look at different propellant combinations for the ELA vehicles? I have to be honest, the list of propellants they did NOT try running through the RL10 is pretty short and they found the operational and manufacturing requirements to run the ones they DID test pretty 'simple' in general terms. (Methane and propane were found to be especially "operationally simple" from what I've read)

Randy
 
Chapter 3: The Journey Begins
Chapter 3: The Journey Begins

1995 would be the year that would prove that the past five years of development were either a waste of time and money or a successful venture for the US Space Program and the Selene Program. The first flight would be the 70th mission of the Space Shuttle Program: STS-70-T. The naming system was chosen to try and be as simple as possible with the letter T standing for Testing, the letter C standing for Crew, and the letter U standing for unmanned cargo/experiments. STS-70-T will carry two boilerplates: a boilerplate LEV and CM which will be part of the test mission SLP-001-T. The mission would exclude the Titan IV and Centaur-T and mainly focuses on training the crew for their responsibilities after reaching orbit. Starting on Day 1, the crew will focus on constructing the boilerplates into the launch configuration, three hours after doing so, two payload specialists would conduct an EVA to inspect the capsule and LEV to make sure it is able to complete flight, the crew would enter the shuttle again after this step and in the case of needing to abort the mission, the crew would simply deconstruct and head home, anyways the crew after heading inside will keep the boilerplate in launch configuration and will sit in orbit until Day 2. On day 2, the mission specialist will use the Canadarm to pick up the ELA stack and let it sit in free float for about an hour or two under close monitoring by the rest of the crew in case it floats off too far, then it will be retrieved, deconstructed, and the crew will conduct a final EVA before sitting in orbit for the next two days with a return set for the 4th day. It will be a short mission but sometimes short and sweet is just enough for a first step. Columbia was chosen to be the lucky orbiter to lift SLP-001-T to orbit.

On the afternoon of July 14th, 1995, Space Shuttle Columbia, fresh out of the Vehicle Assembly Building, sat on LC-39A awaiting the beginning of a new era of exploration. It was a perfect day for a launch with it being windy but not enough to cancel the launch all together, the sun was out, and the moon was hiding in the horizon; a foreshadowing of the destination to come someday. The countdown arrived at T-1 minute, all systems were nominal, and the countdown continued. The Command Module was cradled just behind the Shuttle Airlock with a truss separating it from the lander section. The countdown reached T-6 seconds and the three RS-25 engines roared to life and soon after, the new ASRMs lifted the stack off of the pad in the matter of microseconds and the mission was on! The launch commentator is quoted saying “Columbia launches once more, carrying us forward towards the moon with the rise of Selene!”. Just as expected, the lightweight ET design and the new SRB design made reaching the parking orbit a smooth ride. Eight and a half minutes later, Columbia reaches orbit and the crew prepare for the work that will come the next day. From the rear windows in the cockpit, the boilerplates could be seen, and they were quite the sight to see inside the payload bay.

Day 1 arrives, and the crew are quick to get to work following the newly made Selene Program Shuttle Operations Manual (SPSOM). The first step was extraction of the LEV and CM by the Mission Specialist using the Canadarm. This is the most precarious part of the shuttle side of the mission due to the LEV being the largest component of the mission but there were no worries as the crew have been training for this moment for years by now. Only a few hours later, and the crew had the LEV in the detachment configuration! The next step was to get the Command Module onto the LEV. Mission Specialists got to their places and maneuvered the Canadarm over to the CM located behind the Airlock. Just after the Canadarm connected to the CM, the CM would not budge almost as if the docking piece holding it to the shuttle jammed. Following contingency instructions found in SPSOM, the crew would need to manually unlatch the CM from the shuttle either through an EVA or through the shuttle controls. It was decided with ground control to first attempt to use the unlatching switches found in the shuttle to remove the CM and if that were to fail then an EVA would be conducted. The crew attempted to use the release switch shortly after the original separation failure and after a moment of silence, the Command Module did not separate. The crew went back to mission control reporting the negative report and the crew went to contingency option #2: an EVA. Since an EVA was already planned, the crew had the right gear needed and could get straight to work on separating the capsule though after this EVA, the second EVA would need to be delayed to later in the mission duration.

By the time ELA should’ve been in separation configuration, the mission and payload specialists were suiting up for an EVA to get the thing separated. On the Evening of July 15th, the EVA to separate the capsule began. The first inspection took place at the docking port since there must’ve been a blockage that prevented the docking ring from separating from the shuttle. Flashlights were used due to the coming sunset which made the situation somewhat more precarious. The issue was found at the bottom of the docking ring where one of the Docking Petals that would connect to the shuttle were jammed in place. Tools that were issued for the original EVA could make easy work of the situation but it was decided that since the night was coming the repair would need to happen the next day and so they returned into the airlock.

Day 2 begins, and the crew wakes up with one mission in mind: undock the Command Module. Two astronauts suited up again for another EVA which would be the last chance for a repair and if a repair couldn’t be completed then the LEV would need to be stowed again and returned home with the crew. Backdropped by the ocean, the EVA members used small pickaxe-like tools to dislodge the blockage at the petal. The next 2 or so hours of extra-vehicular activity were slow, but the blockage was successfully removed from the docking port. The crew returned back inside to hopefully have a shot at attempting the second and last maneuver in the first ELA mission. Inside the shuttle, the release switch was triggered again, and a muffled clunk was heard. It was all part of the mission, but it shook up the crew a little after the troubles that were just triumphed over. The canadarm was moved over to the CM and it was planted into the LEV docking port with a docking confirmed down at Houston that the docking was secure nearly a day after the first attempt. No EVA could be done now to do an inspection of the full stack so it was decided to not have it free float in the case that the docking port comes loose in some worst-case scenario which wasn’t much off the scope of what could happen after the docking port incident earlier in the mission. After getting some good photos for the people on the ground, the CM was removed from the LEV and berthed with the shuttle again while the LEV was lowered into the launch configuration once again. The crew could now do other small-scale experiments inside for the rest of the mission duration.

Day 3 passes and Day 4 arrives, and the crew prepare to bring Columbia back home. The crew were to land at Kennedy Space Center once it was confirmed that landing conditions were green. A few OMS burns and drifting in space later, and the shuttle was gliding through the atmosphere and soon enough, touched down at KSC that afternoon on July 17th, 1995. The shuttle was brought with the boilerplates to the Orbiter Processing Facility where the ELA was removed completely and brought to a separate building for examination of the docking port.

The mission was a risky success but like all first missions there is always at least one thing that fails but that’s part of trial and error. The next mission was scheduled to use the first full ELA capsule which if it was given life support and actual seats, could house two astronauts but the next mission would be somewhat the same as STS-70-T but all of the original mission objectives would be completed. Meanwhile as the shuttle makes advancements, the Titan IV continues to prepare for its first Selene Program mission sometime in 1997.

Either way, the future of the Selene Program is bright and closer than many may expect with the first test mission with mission worthy hardware coming by quickly but like all things, we are ready.
 
Seems like a really abbreviated mission--I'd have expected them to bulk it out to at least a week. It didn't cost more to stay up once launched, and it'd give more time for mid-deck science and longer-duration tests of the lander systems in space.
 
Seems like a really abbreviated mission--I'd have expected them to bulk it out to at least a week. It didn't cost more to stay up once launched, and it'd give more time for mid-deck science and longer-duration tests of the lander systems in space.
When I was typing originally, I thought it would make sense to be a shorter than normal mission just because it was a test mission and didn't think much of the other science onboard to keep the mission simple I guess.
 
When I was typing originally, I thought it would make sense to be a shorter than normal mission just because it was a test mission and didn't think much of the other science onboard to keep the mission simple I guess.

Being's the Shuttle was supposed to be a 'do-everything-all-the-time' vehicle any mission which didn't do as much as possible was frowned on. Besides if the LEV and CM are only 'boiler-plate' models they likely won't bring them back down and multiple dock/undocks would be planned then abandoned in orbit. (Though I can see the boiler-plate CM being de-orbited to test the reentry and landing characteristics in an unmanned test)

As an aside/question I'm wondering if they are going to, in the run up to actual operations, address some of the more important "missing" elements of the architecture?

For example the idea of using the CM directly for surface operations was going to be a problem no matter how 'little' it was used for regular operations. The problem mostly being having to bring the rather obviously Lunar dust covered surface suits into the CM and having them in there the whole trip back with all the issues that will cause. Anyway they might develop an inflatable airlock that can deploy to the surface? I suspect bigger windows are going to be needed and the internal CM layout will likely be 'interesting' to handle getting too and from the surface.

Randy
 
Being's the Shuttle was supposed to be a 'do-everything-all-the-time' vehicle any mission which didn't do as much as possible was frowned on. Besides if the LEV and CM are only 'boiler-plate' models they likely won't bring them back down and multiple dock/undocks would be planned then abandoned in orbit. (Though I can see the boiler-plate CM being de-orbited to test the reentry and landing characteristics in an unmanned test)

As an aside/question I'm wondering if they are going to, in the run up to actual operations, address some of the more important "missing" elements of the architecture?

For example the idea of using the CM directly for surface operations was going to be a problem no matter how 'little' it was used for regular operations. The problem mostly being having to bring the rather obviously Lunar dust covered surface suits into the CM and having them in there the whole trip back with all the issues that will cause. Anyway they might develop an inflatable airlock that can deploy to the surface? I suspect bigger windows are going to be needed and the internal CM layout will likely be 'interesting' to handle getting too and from the surface.

Randy
Oh yeah there will definitely be more issues that arise that will be addressed in fixed in Chapter 4 in anticipation of the first launch to the Moon coming soon. I'll also talk more about the actual training the landing crew would need for the mission as well.
 
My spring break is coming up so I'll use that time to get through the rest of chapter 4 (This will be the longest chapter so far)
 
Top